The software is "free" but a donation is required to get a copy.Sounds like a church having a concert where the concert is free buta donation is required to get at ticket.

This practice does not violate the rules because it can be consideredthe price of distribution but it is not clear up front.

I have donated money the past but was not listed as a contributor by bitwiseworksso they had an issue letting me have the latest Open Office. Reluctantly theyagreed without a donation so after they let me have it I sent another donation.

It looks like bitwiseworks.com is not getting enough money to pay for thework they are doing.

But it is necessary to differentiate the "Free of Charge Culture" to the "Free (Freedom) Culture". Both things are different and the issue is because on english "Free" is the same word for "Free of Charge/Gratis" and "Freedom / Libre", in spanish we don't have the wording problem, but there is also people wrongly expecting open source always to be free of charge.

I personally don't have issues of what Bitwise Works is doing if they are releasing the full source code of the OpenOffice port (I don't have the skill to verify that). It is legal and they need money to pay for developers. But people paying $20 need to understand that they are not paying a license fee to use OpenOffice, they are paying to support bitwise works development. Open source software changes the software development market to stop charging for software and start charging for service, and at the same time it also give the users a lower risk since there is not only one developer/company with exclusive access to the source code.

If it $20 it is too much or too less for the software, I think it changes from country to country. The other backdraw is that someone can grab the source code and compile another binary version of OO, in that case Bitwise should not get mad since it is also legal. But I think on this case that it is good to support "the services" (not the license) of a company support the OS/2 platform.

Strictly speaking, I do not believe the Apache license used by Open Office 4.x requires bww to release any source code. The license is fairly permissive. Companies have made proprietary ports before. It would be nice if they released code, and it seems like they are working with the parent project on bug fixes but there is no requirement they release the OS/2 specific parts, at least that I'm aware of.

I have no problem paying 20 Euro for OpenOffice on OS/2, I'll pay 20 Euro and probably end up donating again in a few months. I'm extremely happy with the work being done. I just wish the situation was a bit more clear.

"For the download location please write us an e-mail...If you like Apache OpenOffice, please pass by our online shop and donate for Apache OpenOffice for OS/2."

Presumably if I send bitwise an email asking for download details I will get a response asking for a donation?

I must admit that I will have no problem in making a donation in order to thank bitwise for their efforts but do feel that if a donation is required in order to get the current release that should be made clear in the announcement.

Strictly speaking, I do not believe the Apache license used by Open Office 4.x requires bww to release any source code.

That's why I like GNU GPL (or the group of copyleft licenses) better. Some people think it is a restrictive license, but I think it is more restrictive to have to pay for each license of use and keep the source code as secret. And now even the cloud based software terms are more restrictive than GNU GPL. If I accept a market where software can have a restriction that source code is a secret, that forces you can not share the binaries and that you can not create derivative works, why should I not accept a license that forces you to share the source code and derivative works?

I would really like to know where the OpenOffice OS/2 source code is being uploaded just for reference, not that I can or plan to do anything with it. I was told that OpenOffice port (OS/2 related source code) is begin uploaded here: https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Source_Code

The biggest problem is still the money. Not the amount but getting it to the account. There are lots of options, but first they have to explain to me why I can print 19 pages with names of companies who need to know that I paid through some kind of service. Credit cards are nice too, but not safe. Also the site where you have to fill in your numbers is not safe. In Europe we can transfer money to every other account in Europe thanks to one coin. But I never see an account number. Next the thing I was not pleased. Latest donation for Java was spend in an other direction. When I donate for next version of Java I suspect that the money is spend that way. And I'm still waiting for the next release kick-off. So I understand that Bitwiseworks needs money, but than they have to release an account number and spend the money for the purpose it was given.